This is one of the worst cites I have seen on SDMB.
I followed the link to the website and the second paragraph goes as follows:
No, Baruch Spinoza never gave his “definition” of Art, yet his way of thinking,
his theories, fully substantiate what I am about to say about my definition of Art.
OK, so whoever you are quoting Aro, it’s not Baruch Spinoza.
It is in fact Shah Jahan. No, I’ve never heard of him either but let me save you the bother of trawling through his third-rate website, bad English and even worse philosophies by quoting from his ‘Biography’ page.
(speaking about himself) His works of “art” are products, advertising campaigns, company restructurings, labor agreements, acquisitions, and sales growths.
I’m sorry Aro but for the purposes of this discussion it is most certainly NOT a definition or art worth considering.
As numerous disaster movies have proven, it’s perfectly possible to view the pictures of the WTC as art or even as an entertainment provided you remove them from the context of human suffering and devastation. That, of course, is the hard part and I can’t understand why would be so cold-blooded as to try. Somehow Hirst seems to have performed this trick in his own mind, and you have to assume he didn’t intend his remarks to sound as callous as they do. I hope for his sake they don’t get reported any further though.
It’s interesting that the Hiroshima bomb has been mentioned. Plenty of film accompanying the atomic weapons tests of the 1950s and '60s describe the mushroom clouds as “beautiful” as well as terrible. Again, this is perfectly easy to do if you remove them from the context of mass slaughter, and evidently the commentators of those films find that easier to do than I could.
Chris Morris, as usual, directs himself not to the subject itself but to the media’s reporting of it. I find myself broadly agreeing with him that the news media frequently take important stories and turn them into crass products of their own, complete with glossy pull-out supplements, special retrospectives and self-reverential summaries. There have been far too many of those produced for 9/11, and I think that’s perfectly valid material for satire – even more so because the central subject itself so deserves to be treated with sensitivity and honest sympathy.
Somnambulist: It’s perfectly possible that “Shah Jahan” is a pseudonym stolen from the man who commissioned the Taj Mahal. The rest of the website is pretentious enough to suggest that to me anyway.
It was not my intention to imply anything at all. I did not mean to suggest that your view is narrow or distorted, or that you had “lost perspective,” only that other views, such as Hirst’s, are just as valid.
“Art” is completely in the eye of the beholder. Hirst himself makes things which he intends to be art, but which others have dismissed as trash. Conversely, images and pop cultural themes originally intended as political or commercial statements have become works of art in their own right. Che Gueverra poster, anyone? An image’s status as “art” often has little to do with the intent of its forger.
Are suicide bombers the artists of the new mellenium? I don’t personally feel so, but someone else might. Calling something art does need not necessarily imply that you approve of it.
I disagree that “the cutting edge of art has a boundary.” The boundaries exist in the viewer, not the work itself. Again, this is not to suggest that everyone needs to broaden their perspective so that they can see a terrorist act as a work of art, only that different people have different boundaries, and for some Hirst’s statements are not so unacceptable.
I think the lack of class in Hirst’s comments is due more to the venue he chose to express them in than to their actual content. An interview with the BBC that is going to be reduced to soundbites is not the best place to express controversial ideas if you care about your image in that sense (which, by the way, I don’t think Hirst does).
I don’t think I sound stupid. You might think I sound insensetive, but you don’t know me. And that’s not meant as some kind of self-righteous, head wagging posturing, but simply as a statement of fact: you don’t know me. You have no idea how emotionally affected I may or may not have been by the attacks last year. You don’t know whether I knew people in the towers that day.
Just because I find validity in Hirst’s comments doesn’t mean I didn’t react emotionally to the attacks as well.
Kyomara, thanks for your views which you deliver articulately and succinctly (much more so that Damien Hirst did in his ‘video essay’).
My apologies if I misinterpreted your previous post. I’m not sure what you intended to convey by starting your post with ‘Feh.’ but at first glance I took it to be an expression of dismissiveness or derision and perhaps I read more into the rest of what you wrote than was actually there.
I don’t disagree that imagery or themes derived from tragedy (or even of tragedy) can be viewed artistically. I could put a poster on my wall of a mushroom cloud, call it art and defend that statement. However, I maintain that the act of detonating a nuclear bomb and killing tens of thousands of innocent people has no inherent artistic merit.
When you propose to push the envelope and label something as art that would previously not warrant that label, then you run the risk of upsetting or offending those who don’t share your view. That in itself is not an issue when you are simply crossing boundaries of taste (such as pickling dissected animals) and upsetting the squeamish. It becomes an if you stretch the definition to mass murder and terrorism you risk offense to the victims of those atrocities. In a civilized society that can carry consequences, the least of which will be severe criticism on Internet message boards!
What I am really having problems digesting is that not only does Damien Hirst challenge us to view the acts of 9/11 artistically but also he urges us to ‘congratulate’ the perpetrators on their achievements. He even goes so far as to suggest that ‘if we shy away from doing so…that’s dangerous.’ But he doesn’t really support these outlandish statements.
If you hold such an extreme radical view you need to have a convincing argument to back it up or it can be dismissed as meaningless (or perhaps as the statements of someone just being contrary for the sake of bolstering their reputation for controversy).
Yours is the best argument that I have read here for accepting other people’s views of what can be considered as art. I fully accept that I cannot prescribe another person to share my point of view. I also concede that there are those for whom the artistic envelope encompasses acts of terrorism. Damien Hirst is one of them. But for me to consider this point of view valid it must have some rationale. In the end it has to comply with some kind of reasonable definition of the word ‘art’ to have any useful meaning, otherwise use a different word.
I am fully at liberty, for my own purposes, to rewrite the entry for ‘artist’ in the dictionary thus:
art·ist Pronunciation Key (ärtst)
n.
One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
Mass-murdering terrorist.
But if I cannot convince anyone else to subscribe to my definition then A) I am going to encounter communication problems and B) what exactly is the point of such a futile exercise?
Terrorist acts and human suffering are not works of art. That is my opinion and is most likely to remain so. I will continue to state it as fact until someone can offer a convincing argument that a contrary view is valid.
Not necessarily so. We’re dealing with a soundbite here. Not one of us has heard or had a complete discussion with Hirst on this topic. Given more space, he might prevent his views much more articulately. And for all we know, he did, but his comments got edited.
The “feh” in my first post was just meant to be a hand wave–expressing that I didn’t really think Hirst’s comments were all that shocking. Sorry if it seemed like a dismissal of you personally.
Saying that the terrorists “need congratulating” is an unfortunate choice of words. I’d like to think that Hirst didn’t actually mean the men deserve some sort of pat on the back for their hard work, but rather that it is alright to marvel at the way the plan was carried out.
I don’t personally feel the need to redefine the meaning of the word “artist.” It means one thing to me and another thing to you, and to be blunt, as long as one person’s definition doesn’t negate the enjoyment or appreciation of the other I could care less whether people agree with my personal definition. For me, art is what I say it is, and for you it is what you say it is. I feel no need to force you to agree with me.
Actually I have seen the entire ‘video essay’ and personally I found Hirst rather inarticulate, bordering on the flippant (that might just be his natural style), and his views lacking thought.
For the most part I agree with you, Kyomara. It really is irrelevant what you or I feel our personal definition of ‘art’ or ‘artist’ is, except, as you point out when it negates another person’s enjoyment/appreciation. The whole point of this thread is that by defining the acts of 9/11 as a work of art and applauding the perpetrators Damien Hirst has caused significant offense. He has achieved fame (or at least notoriety) through his art and by default is a voice for artists and the art world, which I think he has discredited. If you do not care that his views cause offense then that is fine. Personally I think he is out of line and would either like to hear him retract his statements and apologise or hear an argument that convinces me what he has said was acceptable. Does that sound reasonable?
ive heard alot of people talking about the footage of the plane banking and crashing into the towers in a purely art/film/visual way. maybe its the fact im not from the US and i can easily distance myself from the event, but i do on a purely visual level find the footage of the crash to be extremely well shot. if that squence had been in a movie it would have been praised.
but its not a movie, so rightly poeple get emotional over it. which is fair enough. but that doesnt negate the purely visual aspect. for me that footage is amazing.
but thats not quite what hirst is saying is it. hes praising the whole event as art. not just the subsquent footage.
was the attack clever, cunning and impressive considering they took on one of the most technologically and security advanced nations in the world? yes.
On reflection, I think you could be right. What an e-jit I am. Oh, for a post-delete button. :smack:
It was too much of a drive-by posting.
I quickly tried to pul a quote from somewhere to (attempt to) add credience to what I was thinking about the negativity stated about the value of art in this thread. It totally backfired as I picked a stupid page to link to.
Apologises to all who read this drivel.
::head hangs in shame::
Whatever one’s opinions of Hirst as an artist (personally, I don’t think much of him), you have to remember that he’s also a professional self-publicist and controversialist. He likes to shock people, and stir up reactions, and get his name in the papers. This is just another example of him doing exactly that.
Doh! My last reply to this thread got ate in the crash.
Basically I said that yes, Somnambulist, you sound like a reasonable man, your opinion sounds reasonable. However, I don’t personally wish for Hirst to apologize, and if he did, it would have to be one of the most insincere apologies ever.
Say what you will about the man, but you certainly can’t call him insincere.
Double doh! I didn’t even bother to check your link before I posted last, assuming it was a link to the original interview.
Hmm. No, I don’t think it’s likely that the apology was too sincere. Although, as is often the case with this kind of apology, it’s a bit tricky isn’t it? They never apologize for what they did, just for the fact that what they did offended someone.
So maybe just the part about not meaning any offense was sincere? I don’t know. Sorry to cop out like that, but it’s Friday night and my head is 100% fried. Maybe I’ll try again Monday.
IMO your perspective on this issue is far too facile. If everything (to someone) is art then applying an aesthetic criteria becomes meaningless and art is simply some mundane, ontological gestalt. Without a contextual esthetic standard of some kind the notion of something being “art” becomes somewhat pointless, revolving about an “art is everything, art is nothing” black hole of context.
Shocking the bourgoisie has been a mainstay of modern artists for almost a century. I don’t really see why any topic should be artistically sancrosanct and untouchable, including the Holocaust and September 11th. Hirst is a gifted artist, no doubt, but his comments were stupid and callous. But somewhat true, nonetheless. I believe he did issue an apology for his comments soon after making them, and rightfully so.
